Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[dowie]

Isn't the idea of Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn negotiating Brexit terms a load of old codswallop anyway? The people negotiating should be..um... you know, professional negotiators?

not completely - the bigger picture is driven politically - re: what areas we're willing to concede on, what we want etc..

 

[Dis86]

The principle also applies to drone strikes, etc.

In warfare you can kill your enemy without trial, and that's why we've called this a "war on terror" - it's very deliberate. It removes the need for the judicial process in many people's eyes.

But in reality these terrorists are criminals. Criminals in this country aren't routinely executed by special forces/drone strikes, etc. Maybe in the US, but hey...

Have we removed the need for any kind of judicial oversight, rule of law, etc? A terrorist can be killed like an enemy combatant in times of war. The problem is now that you can seemingly apply the term "terrorist" to any number of people... who decides? What are the rules for determining who can just be killed without judicial process and who must be given a trial, etc?

Actually anyone can be killed without judicial process if they present a clear risk of harm to others.
You trying to tell me Osama bin Laden was just a misunderstood tree hugging love bug?

 

[Macro]

I make no judgement on whether porn is bad/wrong/harmful/otherwise.

It's bad that Theresa May wants to decide this for all of us based on her personal beliefs.

Hang on - I thought you said it was to bring porn available in the UK via the internet into alignment with Porn available every other way in the UK regulated by the BBFC? That's not May personally inflicting unilaterally a blanket ban on porn, it's saying (whether you agree with it or not is another point) that porn via the internet should be subject tot he same standards as every other method of delivering porn based on an independant organisation.

I may not agree with the BBFCs choice of what is and is not acceptable based on personal preference but that is completely different to your initial post of "May will ban all porn in the UK".

Dropping the porn thing you said May would legislate so only "plain text" communications would be possible, a UK only internet and censorship/deletion of anything the government disagrees with without oversight?

I'm afraid that although open minded your post just strikes me a political scare mongering although if you can help with some direct, genuine first hand sources for the above rather than hyperbole and opinion I'm as ready as the next person to be outraged and head for the closest rope and pitch fork...

 

[V F]

Anyone else chuckling at some of these posts? Foxeye, the porn, Google, Forceware...

 

[FoxEye]

Actually anyone can be killed without judicial process if they present a clear risk of harm to others.
You trying to tell me Osama bin Laden was just a misunderstood tree hugging love bug?

Who of us knows anything about Bin Laden beyond what was reported in the media?

In this country we have trial by jury, not trial by media.

You assuming his guilt is exactly the point. Guilt can only be established by trial and presented evidence. Media reporting does not constitute proof.

 

[V F]

We've had trial by media for a very long, long time. Its where all the outrage comes from.

 

[dowie]

Who of us knows anything about Bin Laden beyond what was reported in the media?

In this country we have trial by jury, not trial by media.

You assuming his guilt is exactly the point. Guilt can only be established by trial and presented evidence. Media reporting does not constitute proof.

LOL so I guess we'll never know who was responsible for the Manchester bombing because the suicide bomber we all suspect will never have a jury trial?

 

[McBain]

Who of us knows anything about Bin Laden beyond what was reported in the media?

In this country we have trial by jury, not trial by media.

You assuming his guilt is exactly the point. Guilt can only be established by trial and presented evidence. Media reporting does not constitute proof.

At what point do we taken his admission as proof of guilt?

I suppose we could say that was fake etc, but where do we draw the line

 

[ubersonic]

What I take exception too is the "no deal is better than a bad deal" mantra.

I bought my TV from Comet during a sale, but as it was a great TV it was only 5% off, I managed to talk the manager into throwing in the five year warranty for free (which outlived Comet lol) but he wouldn't budge from 5% off, so I got it for 5% off, I didn't go across the road to Curries and buy it for 0% off because "no deal is better than a bad deal", because I'm not an idiot.

 

[balky12]

What are the rules for determining who can just be killed without judicial process and who must be given a trial, etc?

Think it's quite well documented. I believe anyone who poses a perceived threat to responding armed services/ public can be killed without trial.

This goes for terrorists/ criminals/ Joe Bloggs acting in such a way that loss of life could be quite probable, especially towards Police/ SWAT/ FBI/ CO19/ SAS/ etc.

I think Bin Laded probably quite easily fell into the 'perceived threat' category...

 

[Ayahuasca]

Actually anyone can be killed without judicial process if they present a clear risk of harm to others.
You trying to tell me Osama bin Laden was just a misunderstood tree hugging love bug?

Should all known drug dealers be shot on site then as the vast majority own firearms and tend to be violent individuals.

What's the point in locking any terrorist up if it's far easier to just kill them without trial. Bin Laden could quite easily have been captured without special forces being harmed in the process, the way the US went about it was typical of their approach to warfare though.

The question was nearly as pointless as the hypothetical drone strike one anyway, Paxman had very limited time and asked some atrocious questions that aren't really relevant to this upcoming election and their main manifesto points.

 

[balky12]

Should all known drug dealers be shot on site then as the vast majority own firearms and tend to be violent individuals.

This is some quantum leap. If said drug dealers brandish said weapon then chances are yes, they should be shot.

However I'm not sure where you get your info from... most drug dealers definitely do not own firearms.

Bin Laden could quite easily have been captured without special forces being harmed in the process, the way the US went about it was typical of their approach to warfare though.

Can I ask how you would have gone about it?

 

[FoxEye]

Should all known drug dealers be shot on site then as the vast majority own firearms and tend to be violent individuals.

What's the point in locking any terrorist up if it's far easier to just kill them without trial. Bin Laden could quite easily have been captured without special forces being harmed in the process, the way the US went about it was typical of their approach to warfare though.

The question was nearly as pointless as the hypothetical drone strike one anyway, Paxman had very limited time and asked some atrocious questions that aren't really relevant to this upcoming election and their main manifesto points.

Paxman asked some really daft questions; one really stupid question stood out for me (I tuned in late).

To Corbyn: "What is the most you will give to the EU in any deal? In £billions?"

Corbyn should have flatly told him that, when negotiating a price for something, you don't start by truthfully telling the seller how much you're prepared to pay. To give any answer at all would be inappropriate.

So I can't understand why Paxman kept asking him over and over, a question that it should have been obvious was unanswerable? Corbyn should have flat up told him how stupid the question was, I think.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I don't mean to be rude but you can't actually disagree with a fact, you can only be of the wrong opinion. Killing a suspect without due process or a trail is a travesty of justice, especially when a first world nation with established legal process is holding the trigger. It's that simple.

Not really, justice has nothing to do with having a court system and "due process". These are ways of ensuring justice is served, but not the only route to justice.

 

[Macro]

What I take exception too is the "no deal is better than a bad deal" mantra.

I bought my TV from Comet during a sale, but as it was a great TV it was only 5% off, I managed to talk the manager into throwing in the five year warranty for free (which outlived Comet lol) but he wouldn't budge from 5% off, so I got it for 5% off, I didn't go across the road to Curries and buy it for 0% off because "no deal is better than a bad deal", because I'm not an idiot.

How about if the only "deal" Comet (or Currys) would give you was double the price of other options, or, he'd give you 10% off but the TV only came with 1 week warranty as opposed to 5 years so you decide on other options/stick with the TV you have - would that then mean "no deal is better than a bad deal"?

 

[scorza]

Paxman asked some really daft questions; one really stupid question stood out for me (I tuned in late).

To Corbyn: "What is the most you will give to the EU in any deal? In £billions?"

Corbyn should have flatly told him that, when negotiating a price for something, you don't start by truthfully telling the seller how much you're prepared to pay. To give any answer at all would be inappropriate.

So I can't understand why Paxman kept asking him over and over, a question that it should have been obvious was unanswerable? Corbyn should have flat up told him how stupid the question was, I think.

Maybe he was waiting for Corbyn to tell him that? The fact that Corbyn couldn't respond with a satisfactory answer should be very worrying.

 

[Tunney]

What's the point in locking any terrorist up if it's far easier to just kill them without trial. Bin Laden could quite easily have been captured without special forces being harmed in the process, the way the US went about it was typical of their approach to warfare though.

It's impossible to say exactly how much effort the US put into capturing Bin Laden alive but it certainly wasn't an easy mission for the special forces. They were in a built-up area and in a county where they weren't supposed to be flying mission in. The mission could easily have ended in disaster.

 

[Tummy]

Mind has pretty much being made up, I want to vote for the Green party, but will be voting Labour.

 

[FoxEye]

Not really, justice has nothing to do with having a court system and "due process". These are ways of ensuring justice is served, but not the only route to justice.

Since you're talking in general terms I will also.

Another problem is that "justice" is relative to the observer, until *all* the facts are established. (I'm not saying this is appropriate to Bin Laden, just hypothetically).

Another point of an investigation and a trial is so that every single pertinent fact can be presented, and a verdict can be given based on the full story (not always perfect).

Whether you think justice has been done can depend on your viewpoint, and whether or not you know the full story. It's easy to make up contrived examples but I won't.

 

[BDEE]

This is not sound advice at all. These are horribly expensive products that generally neither adequately satisfy the savings element nor the insurance element. They're essentially an open-ended endowment with regular reviewable cost of life cover that becomes prohibitively expensive in later years.

Entitled to your opinion.

If you think £40 a month for £200k WOL cover with the option of a yearly RPI increase, which can be declined up to 3 times is "horribly expensive" then that's your view. You don't HAVE to increase the cover cost, just that the cover will stop increasing if you decline the RPI increase.

Why else do you think IFAs use them as IHT planning tools? Same goes for protection of your estate value.